Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league/Archive 24

Flags in squad templates

Following on from this conversation with @Fleets:, it appears that it is now the norm to add flagicons next to players in UK clubs (for example see Warrington_Wolves#2017_squad) However, with the NRL clubs we don't do this, so I thought I'd raise the issue here to try and achieve some consensus.
As far as I recall, the last time it was discussed we decided to remove them from these infoboxes. This was for a variety of reasons, which included (a) it was hard to source nationality for each player, (b) it was hard to determine which nationality was the right one to display for each player and (c) it placed undue weight on nationality over other facts about the players, and nationality isn't especially relevant for club players. My reading of MOS:FLAGS is that it also supports that position.
Do people agree with that assessment, or are there good reasons to add flags to the templates? Either way, it would be good to achieve some consensus on the issue. Mattlore (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That's how I understand it, and believe it should remain the same for those reasons. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That is not how it reads to me, as it can be selectively read to support either position. That held by Mattlore and that as seen evidenced throughout the wider sporting world of wikipedia.Fleets (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't my position, it was the project's. Other sports have different, and in most cases clearer, eligibility requirements. Can you outline your position, and why you believe adding flags is of benefit to the templates? Mattlore (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Given that most of the sporting world, bar Oceanic rugby league appears to be in the same boat, I would ask you to outline your position with a view to them not being added to the place where they are not currently. Not something that I am seeking, but given that there is a groundswell of support from many projects I would ask you to create a clearer "eligibility requirement" or stop asking me to justify something that is widely prevalent in all but Oceanic rugby league. I find it tiresome that these conversations feel (I could be wrong) like directives issued from a high, rather than a collegial or collective effort. If there are backroom deals that were brokered some time ago, but never enshrined then you can imagine why I may come off as more than a little grumpy in this conversation. I am normally more receptive than most to bureaucratic or efforts to be more compliant, but there does come a time when patience is tested. When flags are asked to be justified. My time on Wikipedia is meant to improve the quality of rugby league articles, not to converse over the most tendentious of issues, with flags being verboten in rugby league. To quote one idiot "Who knew?"Fleets (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Without spending my time into why the status quo should remain, I will state that I do not seek to add flags to those where they are absent. Were I to seek to do that, I would offer rationale to justify such additions. Given that it would be the removal of the status quo you would understand my chagrin in being asked to justify their remaining, especially when set against the myriad of flags seemingly present in all but Oceanic rugby league.Fleets (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

There's no doubt the current template violates MOS:FLAG – if the flags are to be kept then the country name should appear next to the flag (Australia rather than ). This would probably require the squad template to be reformatted to ensure it's readable (cricket and rugby union squads are good examples of what the format should look like). Regarding whether we should include nationalities in squad templates, I am pretty indifferent to it. It does value if accurate, but it's often difficult to source the correct nationality of many players, especially given how relaxed the eligibility rules are in rugby league. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The cricket and rugby union examples may well be a retrograde step. My position on this is that of the sportsperson section of MOS:FLAG as this has the best link to our sport and no direct contradictions, or strong sentences that are immediately watered down a paragraph later as we tend to find with most MOS'.Fleets (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Fleets, I can understand your frustrations, as like me you are seeking to preserve what you see as the status quo - in my case where we as a project decided last time it was discussed, and in your case, where the Super League clubs have moved to since then. The sportsperson section talks about reliable sources being needed, and that is one of the problems with the current set up, there is currently a lot of unsourced claims in the templates. I believe I have outlined the rationales several times, but in short they are: (a) nationality is hard to source, (b) determining the best nationality to display is hard given the RLIF's eligibilty rules (c) it places undue weight on nationality over other facts about the players, and nationality isn't especially relevant for club players. Mattlore (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that and I'm not totally entrenched in the "if it ain't broke (broadly across wikipedia), then don't fix it" position that could be seen as my position. I will put forward a broad proposal that brings us in line and up to the standards of other sports who retain flags for sportpersons within their club squad templates. I do understand the issue of unsourced, but given that the Australian press is quite prolific and the English press is committed then there is good reason to think that we can remain in line with other sports, or at least enshrine something as to why we are not, perhaps then with a view to rejoining the rest of the sporting world when we sort ourselves out.Fleets (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

So what's the solution here? It seems silly and inconsistent for English club squads to have flags, but for them to be absent from NRL teams. Given the previous consensus, I would suggest reverting any templates including flags until an alternative solution can be found? J Mo 101 (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

In line with other sports you mean, the addition of flags to NRL clubs?Fleets (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me reverting templates to include flags, but do we need to have a process in place to satisfy those who want the traceability, ie birth, declaration, last intl match. I'm not sure how other sports do it but that would be the way to go and bring ourselves up to a standard if people are wanting that standard in place.Fleets (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't do anything one way or the other at the minute in terms of remove or return flags, but I'm more than happy to source my reasonable share of these, but wouldn't want to be wasting my time if there is no impetus to bring our standards into line with other sports. Seems work at this stage could be worthless if they are to go, equally it would be work to remove them and then potentially return them. I would suggest that we allign with other sports and aim up to rationalise them as births, declared (heritage or residency), last intl match, etc. They would be a broad-sweeping grounds for a just and fair system that ticks the boxes that other sports do, and we aim to cite sources to qualify the assertion. That seemed to be the biggest gripe that things were known to the fans, but weren't sourced.Fleets (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have sourced Leigh_Centurions#2017_squad to show that it can be done, although it does take a fair bit of time to implement.Fleets (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Leigh Centurions shows some of the problems, for example - why is there a Samoan flag next to Harrison Hansen over a New Zealand or English one? The source mentions all three and he has represented both NZ and Samoa at top level internationally. There are so many examples like this in our sport. I think I agree with J Mo that we should remove the flags unless we can find a workable way to implement them. Mattlore (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Using sportsperson the flag to use would be Samoa. He may have been born in New Zealand, raised in the North West of England, but that it immaterial, but certainly makes for an interesting accent. He may have played a match for the Kiwis, but this is not the nation he is currently associated with, and given that the current club templates are current, the historical New Zealand would again be be out of place, as he has declared for a(nother) nation, Samoa. I believe sportsperson provides that workable framework to implement things, and to remove them from all rugby league articles when there is a perfectly sound rationale would seem rather improper, when set against the rest of sporting wikipedia being on the other side of the fence. Surely it would be better to agree to create a working agenda.Fleets (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Under the RLIF's current two tier system, where players can switch at will between tier one and tier two, he could play for either Samoa or New Zealand at this year's World Cup. So, unless we have a reliable source that says he has declared for Samoa (as per sportsperson) then we don't know what his current sporting nationality is. Mattlore (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

So the flexibility of the RLIF means for the rigidity of the rugby league project at wikipedia. That is an odd position, as surely we should aim to be the most reactive to when a situation changes and accurately reflect the facts as they appear at the time. Harrison Hansen has a Samoan flag as that was his last intl appearance. Having thoroughly investigated this with other sports here, that would be sufficient, and to ask for something saying that he has not undeclared for Samoa would be a little queer, and feels almost like going down the OR route.Fleets (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

You are right, one solution would be for the project to agree to make an assumption that each player should have their last representative team as their nationality unless their are sources stating otherwise. Another would be to display any tier one nation over any tier two. Another would be to display no flag at all. The point is, we haven't got an agreed approach and it doesn't feel like we are making any progress towards any. Mattlore (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

We would be in line with the rest of wikipedia with the first, not following sportsperson with the second, and again out of sync with the third suggestion. I'm not proposing anything radical, merely using the existing framework that the rest of wikipedia uses, and something that has been here for a number of years on all but Australasian current templates.Fleets (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I would use Burnley_F.C.#First-team_squad as a prime example and Scott Arfield as an example of the wikipedia using sportsperson as the standard over another method, such as genealogical. Josh Drinkwater may have a German passport that allowed him to work in the EU, but he has (to my knowledge), not played for Germany, nor has he stated any desire to play for a side that his heritage allows. Stevie Ward may have indicated that he may well like to play for Wales, but unless he switched his intl allegiance, or stated firmly then he remains English as per sportsperson. Diego Costa of Chelsea_F.C.#Current_squad would be another good example and Joël Matip of Liverpool_F.C.#First-team_squad.Fleets (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Alex Glenn were he to move to a European side, would be a Cook Islander on a current squad template. The fact that he has previously represented New Zealand would be detailed within his article. Were he to jump ship and represent the Kiwis, his flag on the potential European club would be the NZ one.Fleets (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so what's the way forward guys? Fleets obviously strongly wants them to be kept, whereas all other contributors to this discussion seem to favour their removal and the discussion just seems to be going around in circles. How do we reach a conclusion? Should I start a vote? Mattlore (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think they should just be removed per previous consensus. Adding the flags was a unilateral change (as far as I'm aware) and I don't think any of the arguments are strong enough to change what was previously discussed. Just because some other sports use flags doesn't mean we should follow suit. They aren't present in NFL rosters for example. J Mo 101 (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I think they add very little and often misrepresent a players nationality, no matter which method is used. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

If that is way it goes I would take it to a wider comment, as it is right per the individual rule as demonstrated, right per the whole of wikipedia (bar one sport) and there has been extreme willingness to engage on something that is already here, been on European teams for quite some time, apart from Oceanic teams. I have cited, checked off other concerns, but I guess I can't beat aesthetics, feelings or perhaps misgivings of the way the rest of sporting wikipedia views things. Given all of that I believe it would be upon those seeking to remove something to foster an engagement with a much wider strata of the project. Another possibility is an RFC angle, that could well see a small sample consensus as ample justification for removal, but equally they could see the wider implementation to include those Oceanic templates.Fleets (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Not NFL. Not AFL. Not MLB. Not Gaelic football. of course, many others do. Seems to depend on the individual sport.Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I have re-looked into this and it does appear to be a link between the number of nationalities within a club and the prevalence of flags. I would still characterise the prevalence of flags as in the majority, just not a complete or even an overwhelming majority.Fleets (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I gave up on the flag issue ages ago, so it seems to me the question is does the flag indicate nationality or eligibility? The former is pretty static but the latter is far more fluid and needs defining. Should it be who they last played for? Who they have declared they will play for (if selected)? And who knows how we are to deal with British players picked to play for Great Britain but May not have represented one of the home nations. Nthep (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sportsperson would state is as eligibility and per sportsperson it would be the Home nations flags over the Union Flag.Fleets (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

However, the appropriate use section also states "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams." And in these scenarios the players are not representing their nationality - so the MOS both helps and hinders your point of view. Fleets, I think the consensus of the project is pretty clear here that they should be removed - but I won't take any action straight away to allow you time to start a broader discussion if that is what you want to do. Mattlore (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The word used is "that" rather then "their" country or nationality. I could not find a single footballer or rugby league player that was out of sync with sportsperson. I can understand your misgivings over that, but I'm sure you do understand that you can be born in Brazil, but represent the Spanish national side. I would ask you to re-read the MOS, as I'd say you are changing a word to suit your preferred meaning. (I could be wrong and it could be an honest misunderstanding, I could be wrong, or someone could have bastardised the MOS to suit their own means and I'm singing from the wrong hymn sheet) I would state that my position is based on wider wikipedia rules, a prevalent (but not blanket) implementation of said policy, is one that is in existence throughout European rugby league, maintained, edited, updated by numerous editors and IPs, is accurate per MOS, but does have consensus support for their retention upon European templates. I would ask that in those circumstances that more than 3 voices asking for their removal would be necessary. Were a few more voices to be heard, then I would accept defeat, safe in the knowledge that the system is what it is. I don't believe it should be up to me to seek further voices on either side as I'm in the majority as whole, and not seeking a ramp up or escalation of flags to where they are not currently in existence. I am merely putting up the position that they are correctly used, correctly implemented, are in sync with other (but not all) sports with regards to being on the templates. I don't believe that these are being credibly disputed, but I cannot speak for aesthetics as that is a personal thing. If you don't like seeing France, Samoa, Wales, etc displayed every time you hover over a flag and know that he was born in New Zealand, Australia or Scotland, that is something that would eat you up, if you were that way inclined. Soccer does not include a word in the template above the flag column, but other sports do, perhaps that is a way to allay your fears.Fleets (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, other editors have extended you the courtesy of not reverting the templates while this discussion is ongoing – to claim this as "consensus support" is simply untrue. Several editors have already explained why they believe that flags are not appropriate for rugby league templates - demanding that we should now seek further input when you are the one going against previously established consensus is blatant stonewalling and not helpful in trying to resolve this. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I simply cannot agree with a single thing you have said there.Fleets (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I have however attempted to take this to a wider audience within the WPRL community; it may see a few more voices, and they may add to the limited consensus here, and at that stage I would give up the good fight. Elsewise RFC may well be the way to go; that may see 3 to 1 as an acceptable consensus within a community, I don't know.Fleets (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not something I have thought about too much, but (a) I quite like the flags, and (b) align with eligibility for international country. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Problem with that is what you do with players eligible for two or more nations. Unlike other sports, players don't have to choose a single nation to represent – I believe this was one of the reasons the flags were removed in the first place. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't you just place a note next to the flag explaining the eligibility criteria for that player? Or if they had represented one country before another? Sirpottingmix (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly possible. However, with many of the players eligible to play for more than one country, and not having to make a commitment for where the play next, I see it as more misleading than an absence in many cases. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I quite like the flags as I find them a quick way to find a players nationality. Could the first flag be the country of birth, and if different the country of birth, the second flag (bracketed?), could be of the country, or countries, the player has represented (I'm only interested in who they've played for, not who they might be eligible to play for), e.g. () Anthony Gelling, () Scott Grix, . Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I have no real concerns one way or the other, when viewing some other sporting team pages (such as [one]) you do see nationality flags. Personally, I find it makes it slightly easier to know the persons' nationality. From a quick overview of this discussion, it seems that the problem is that some sides (often Super League teams) have the nationality flags, whilst others (usually NRL) do not. I'm not entirely sure if this is an issue. If someone were to open the page for [team] and removed the nationality flags, I wouldn't be overly concerned, though I do think it looks more professional with them.(DAAdshead (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC))

I'm not strongly of either position, but rugby league's international game does make it hard. It's common to see players who are born in one country and play for another country. Willie Mason for example could have flags for New Zealand, Australia and Tonga. This is only going to become more harder with the new international laws introduced recently where players can play for both a 1st tier (Australia, New Zealand, England) and 2nd tier (Tonga, Samoa, Ireland etc.) nation in the same year. We could introduce multiple flags, flags in brackets or notes, but I personally I wouldn't want to see the templates filled up like that because it will become really prevalent and will clog up the look up the template, although that is just for aesthetic reasons. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we would need to have a flag for country of birth, as that can be misleading. But under the current eligibility rules players would need at least a flag for first tier and second as some players simultaneously have two nations they are eligible for. Like Dynamo, I would only really be interested in nations that players have actually played for - maybe we leave it blank if they haven't played representative football (yet). Personally I think my thoughts are in line with Josh - if we are doing it properly then there will be so many notes, brackets and sources that it will be a bit clogged. Mattlore (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I know we are hampered by the RLIF eligibility rules but I don't think we can ignore country of birth. To have against someone like Chris McQueen just an England flag is going to look very silly and to the average reader just look like an error, he's Australian by birth, plays in Australia and apart from one cap has nothing to do with RL in/for England. Readers will tend to look at flags as an indicator of nationality not an indicator of RL international qualification. Besides that what would be proposed for all those players who never play at international level? If you think that flags are only necessary for capped players that is an argument for not having them at all. Just explain birth country and eligibility for other countries at the article on the player and ignore it elsewhere and above all don't use flags as indicators of a complicated subject. Nthep (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:FLAGBIO is pretty clear with "Never use a flag for birth or death place, since doing so may imply an incorrect citizenship or nationality; a great many people have been born or have died abroad." I agree that in the McQueen case he "feels" like an Australian. He has played state of origin, so maybe we count that as justifying an Australian flag? We are entering pretty confusing territory. Mattlore (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

McQueen may well feel Australian to those on both sides of the world, but per the sporting standard at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Sportspersons he would have the English flag. He is currently rewarded with an English flag, and were he to state that he was no longer interested in playing for England, then he would be rewarded with the Australian flag. The McQueen case would be a moot point as he currently plays in the NRL, and I was under the impression that we weren't looking to roll them out there? Either way a possible save would be to have a collapsible column header that said "Nat." and that could open up to read something along the sportsperson line of rugby league nationality or whatever. This could further link to an enshrined definition that was in line with other sports, but made it clear that it was not an indication of place of birth or undue weighting to international rugby league within a current European club squad.Fleets (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A coding fix as seen with Middlesex_County_Cricket_Club#Current_squad. I would minimise the nationality to nat and go from there. It could also be a place to have collapsible links to talk about the likes of Nick Compton and Tim Murtagh playing for intl sides that are not of their birth.Fleets (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't take my using McQueen as an example as any sort of support for rolling flags out to NRL articles, it's not and I remain firmly in the camp who would do away with flags altogether given the choice. I just use McQueen to show how ludicrous the MOS policy is when dealing with something as labyrinthine as the RLIF eligibility rules. Text and sources will always be much better than mini icons. Nthep (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I was going the other way, and confirming that it wasn't being sought to be added to NRL current squads, that's why I described it a moot point. The MOS would be accurately implemented in my description as the word current is in there, and we should always allow people to open up links that detail eligibility, or eligibility rules, or the player article itself which would already detail his heritage, his state side record and the fact that in the past he has worn the green and gold, albeit for the Prime Ministers XIII.Fleets (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

In respect of Chris McQueen, would () be acceptable? Best regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sportsperson, which appears to be the standard framework which most sports base their rationale on, would say no. I know he was not born in Emgland, but I equally know that a great many people over time have represented countries other than their birth, or more than one international side, a different junior side, a state side not linked to their international side. Given that he is currently linked to England and has not stated that he only wanted to play the one game and flipped back to Aus, then the Eng flag would be appropriate. It may also be appropriate to code in something that allows the reader to follow links to an explanation that demonstrates his international allegiance, the fact that he played the next stage down for Queensland and that he was born in Aus. All of these can be linked, but his Australianness does not concern the current template as he is currently an England international and his history and heritage would be covered within his article.Fleets (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that all these nuances can be explained and the place to do that is in the article about him and not trying to shoehorn it into an icon which is either meaningless or outright confusing to the majority of readers. Indicating McQueen's international eligibility is not relevant to Gold Coast Titans or List of Queensland State of Origin players to link two pages where his name appears and would only become so if, for example, the NRL started introducing quotas on overseas eligible internationals in squads or such like. So why complicate things when there isn't an issues to resolve? Nthep (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well there is nothing to explain as he plays for an Australasian side, and I'm not proposing that the wikipedia standard is rolled out to include Australasian sides. I would also not propose to add it to a list of Queensland players as that is not current, whereas the current squad template is very obviously that. No confusion over whether he was this at this point or that point, it is a current template and time being linear it refers to the here and now. Were the NRL to do such a thing then perhaps it could be rolled out there, but again not looking to do that.Fleets (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ignore the specific example of McQueen, it's the principle of using something as simplistic as a flag icon to try and explain something as complicated as international eligibility in RL that is the issue and why, IMO, we would be better off without it anywhere. Nthep (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't be explaining eligibility, merely current allignment. That would be something that the flag does not do, nor does it intend to do. It would be OR to speculate, but sportsperson defines it, and we can further nail down that complicated topic, but a flag does not do what you ask of it, as it is an image and cannot convey something that in other projects is defined elsewhere.Fleets (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Call it eligibility, current alignment whatever it's still a bad idea to put a flag in front of someone's name that is either confusing or irrelevant to anyone not completely au fait with MOS:Sportsflag. The average reader will see an English flag by a player's name and most will assume that means he is English not that we mean he has played for England or has declared his willingness to play for England but could in fact be an Australian, New Zealander or any nationality except English. Then they look the player up to find he isn't English and think "stupid Wikipedia, why are they showing him as English when he is XXX" to the overall detriment of Wikipedia's reputation. To put it simply MOS:SPORTFLAGS is a bad policy and the sooner it is dropped by this project if not everywhere the better. Nthep (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok. So how do we move towards resolving this, as the conversations seem to be going in circles a little bit? In general there seems to be several options;

1. Removing the flags from all of these templates,
2. Deciding on a suitable criteria and applying this to European templates only (which involves possibly displaying two flags for players simultaneously eligible for two countries)
3. Deciding on a suitable criteria (as above) and applying this to all templates
4. Another option that I haven't thought of?

Option 3 seems to have no support at the moment. What do we do now? Hold a vote to see which proposal is favoured and go with that? Let the conversation go on for a bit longer and hope it becomes an unanimous decision? Mattlore (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Another option would be to insert the word Nat. into the template. This would be collapsed and when opened would read something along the lines of "Rugby League Nationality". This could link to an enshrined definition, based on the one that the rest of sporting wikipedia uses when inserting flags. It could have as much or a little information to inform the reader, if confused. A further potential option is to hardcode a link to the international side when hovering over the flags and linking to the countries rugby league side. This is beyond my expertise as this would involve the flags being set up as RL ones. I would also split out option two into distinct options as one would be accurate per sportsperson and one potentially would not.Fleets (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've started some headings below where people can !vote for their preference and hopefully a clear consensus emerges. @Fleets: please re-word option 2, 3 or 4 or add another option if I haven't summarised the options correctly. Lets keep these options open for at least a week. Mattlore (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Per invitation by Mattlore I have tweaked question 2 to fit in line with sportsperson, moving some material from another question and giving a distinct question 5, not just the original four proposals in the survey.Fleets (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, so what now? Both the conversation and the !vote have a slight lean towards removing the flags - so should we do that? Or find a way to achieve an increased consensus? Mattlore (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that the outcome of the previous discussion on this topic was to the remove the flags, it doesn't appear there is a strong enough opinion either way to overturn this, so I'm happy to remove them. I was considering suggesting an alternative such as marking players with an asterisk who count towards the Super League foreign quota, but all the loopholes like Kolpak etc. make it very difficult to source. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted this as I literally said the full expletive version of WTF. I can re-tread steps but removing them without consensus does not appear to have been a constructive way forwards.Fleets (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

We have since had a non project member vote, to take it to 5 remove to 3 keep. Unless there are additional votes, I suggest, and this may not play out in my favour, that those seeking to remove the flags set up a third opinion, mediation, higher opinion or whatever as consensus has not been reached and not even Mr Trump could say that it was. That would be a way forwards; something that overules wider wikipedia rules, an opinion that says that a consensus of 5 to 3 is sufficent, or an admin that gives a considered and measured unbiased opinion and we move forwards from there.Fleets (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware one had to be a member of the project to !vote. And, of course, this exercise is not in fact a vote. Strike my !vote if it makes things easier, although it won't alter my considered opinion having read all of the discussion above + being fairly au fait with procedure, policies etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I did think about adding that in, but I thought it went without saying that the vote was open to all. I'm more than happy to retain your vote, even if it is contrary to mine. As you have read the entire discussion and you are fairly familiar with procedures and protocols here, would my above suggestions be a reasonable way forwards?Fleets (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I think there are three options. You can ask at somewhere like WP:AN to see if an admin is prepared to determine consensus; or you can start a formal RfC (which I suspect is what you would be told at AN); or you can follow the Wikipedia default for situations where there is no clear consensus. That default is to leave things as they were prior to any recent changes/proposals/discussions/nominations etc. For example, at WP:AFD, a "no consensus" outcome leads to the article being kept. Since there was a discussion prior to this one, it is the outcome of that which would apply in this instance. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

RFC would appear to be the route to remove or retain them. That wikipedia default would see us out of sync with sportsperson and most sports, so much better to get a definitive answer and enshrine something as to why we are in, out or half-in and half-out with regards to flags.Fleets (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Fine, you can do that. I may be teaching you to suck eggs, in which case my apologies, but may I suggest you make yourself familiar with the guidance for opening an RfC before actually doing it? I've participated in a fair few and you may not believe how many times they fail to conclude properly because their very existence was malformed in one way or another. It is, for example, surprisingly easy to pose the request in a non-neutral manner, or so it would seem if you look at the number of respondents who then comment in that way. - Sitush (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily volunteering myself tbh, but I'm happy to keep someone honest, or be kept honest if an RFC is the way to resolve this, and no-one else puts there hand up. I certainly wouldn't want a keep to be tainted by a bodge-job and the remove camp would, I imagine, want things done properly too.Fleets (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Fleets, I feel like this conversation is leaning towards upholding the previous conversations on the issue and removing the flags. Basically we appear to be in the same situation as we were a month ago, when you suggested a RfC as a next step. If a RfC is the only way you feel like an agreeable consensus can be reached, then you should start that process. Mattlore (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I was almost apoplectic, when I saw them removed, so I will try to consider your feelings and tread lightly. I still don't feel that it is my position to start an rfc, for the reasons previously stated. I will however look to put something together later this week, but it won't be anything too deep as I was only planning on keeping an eye on whoever bashed up a few words on the keep v remove that was put to an RfC.Fleets (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm happy to start it if you feel it is a necessary step but don't have time to do it. I think the question should be kept very simple - something like "should flags be used in the player squad templates". Mattlore (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I'm my own boss, I don't necessarily have the time either. You have feelings on the matter, I also have a position. Both have merits and both have flaws. I would add a little to that question if I were you as the binary nature of that would either see it sent back to us, and potentially fail to address the issue of primacy of law of whether to retain due to wider wikipedia acceptance or remove due to a previous project position and the numerous other bolt-ons to both sides of the discussion.Fleets (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Simple and binary is always best in RfCs. And what happens elsewhere on Wikipedia is often only of tangential relevance when it comes to complex infoboxes. - Sitush (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I would say that simple and binary very well could lead to a situation you previously spoke of. I would say that half a line is far too simple and being binary it wouldn't address any of this rather long discussion. The heart of the matter is really the primacy; are we right to opt out of a wikipedia norm with a previously held project position, or are we right to retain the flags because of the norm and no overarching consensus to remove, again with many additional positions and better language used to illustrate both sides. It comes down to primacy and half a line is far too simple. It doesn't need to be long, but it would need to address that issue.Fleets (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry but you are wrong. That is why I suggested reviewing what goes on. The query posed in an RfC should operate on the K.I.S.S. principle, which in this case is flags or no flags. That doesn't prevent discussion, which should be in a subsection immediately following the question, before a section where people can make brief comments and !vote. As soon as you make a statement of case in the opening request, you open it up to accusations of non-neutral wording etc. - Sitush (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Then I'm prepared to be wrong. If a half a line question leads to an amicable outcome, ie resolved one way or the other then it has worked. Non-neutral wording would be why I highlighted better language as a potential point, but to ignore the heat of the meat, with regards to primacy, to me seems a little bit odd. Again it doesn't have to take it much beyond the half line, perhaps even going no further than a whole line of text. If an rfc does address primacy without having it as part of the question, then again I'm happy to wrong, but I hadn't seen the Keep It Simple Stupid principle detailed on the request for comment page.Fleets (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Fleets, I was offering to start the RfC as you had already indicated you didn't have time. What would you like added to the proposal? Obviously if the RfC decides to use flags then it would be back on the project to discuss the "worms", such as the criteria for how we decide which flag to display. The RfC just deals with the major issue, which is why I proposed a simple and binary question. Mattlore (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Having had the direction from Sitush that binary is the way to go, I would still, as per the above add the primacy of law angle. No need to take it to a long winded statement, just something simple that is no more than a sentence that addresses what boils down to a wider wikipedia acceptance vs a previous project decision when we don't have a clear consensus moving forward. We get a decision on that sentiment and I'm sure both sides would gladly step aside on the rls template. Again, as per the above, the language is very much up for debate, but to not mention that in a short, concise sentence would seem a little off to me.Fleets (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I actually do not understand this "primacy of law" thing. One thing Wikipedia isn't is a legal system. There is no primacy in the sense that I would use the phrase, hence we have and use WP:IAR. So, presumably, I really am not understanding you. If you are saying that the question should include the point that other projects/infoboxes/whatever include flags then, no, because that is a biassed commentary in the question. It is actually muddying the waters of what should be a straight yes/no by trying to argue a position. Commenters might choose to discuss the implications in order to determine which outcome they support. But, clearly, you do not accept this and so now we seem to be in the farcical situation of needing an RfC to determine how to frame an RfC. Sorry to say this but this is developing into a classic wikilawyering scenario, whether you realise it or not. That's when I walk away because AGF goes out of the window: 180-190k edits on, I've been there, done that, seen it all before. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I would like to think you would understand that it was being used to illustrate which takes precedence. I never claimed to, nor asked for it to be used in a legal sense. IAR wouldn't help as both sides would say that they would be improving the rls, one side by removing and the other retaining. I'm afraid I can't agree that an additional sentence for clarification cannot be added, certainly one that very easily could be neutral and cutting to the point. I cannot see how summarising the sides of both positions to a single sentence and to remove feelings or any sense of mud would be an issue, at all. The straight yes/no is not where this conversation has ended up. If neutral language and answering a question that resolves the issue then I'm quite happy to have it called that, else please do not throw about words such as that. If you feel it to be a farce, please join the project and pose the question yourself, as I only have a finite amount of time, and if you have such a great experience of that side of things, please put them to good use. My intention has, and always will be to improve rugby league articles. I have offered numerous solutions, alternatives, options, opinions, tweaks and so much dialogue. If it is wikilawyering then, it is very different from the real world. Please continue to assume good faith, as I retain it for others, retain respect for the work of others, even if they are on the opposite side of the aisle on this particular topic.Fleets (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Fleets, you have lost me here. Can you please propose some wording for the RfC that will be acceptable to you so we can speedily end this issue which has been dragging on for months now. Mattlore (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It was a reply to Sitush. I've said I'll put something together later this week, and I've already put some barebones out here.Fleets (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposals

Option 1: Remove flags

Under this proposal, the project will remove the flags from these squad templates.

1. Support: As outlined in the conversations above I would like to see us remove the flags that have crept into use in these squad templates. In short because, they are hard to reference, RLIF's eligibility laws are complex and eligibility is not especially relevant to clubs. Mattlore (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Support per Mattlore. Nthep (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Support I've been considering if we can make this work, but it seems like there are too many examples where trying to define a player's nationality with a single flag is virtually impossible, so I feel that it's better just to remove them. I've seen a few decent suggestions, such as multiple flags, but I would much rather see a player's eligibility detailed accurately in his own article rather than trying to shoehorn it into an increasingly cluttered squad template. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
4. Support. I have no aesthetic problem with flags, but they take what can be a complicated matter and simplify it to the point of being misleading. Best addressed properly in the player's article. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
5. Support per Mattlore and the points raised by Nthep in the discussion. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Option 2: Use a flag in European templates to represent RLIF eligibility or the nation that they are currently representing

Under this proposal, the squad templates will display one flag to represent the nation they represent or they are eligible to represent under RLIF eligibility. Being a current squad template it would not have more than one flag. Further discussion will be needed to define the how we display RLIF's complex eligibility laws and we may change the coding in the squad template to achieve this. In addition to RLIF eligibility, nations that a player has actually represented. Further discussion will be needed to work out how this is defined by the project.

1. Support: As outlined in the conversations above I would like to see us flags that retained throughout the European squad templates. In short because the are correctly implemented per sportsperson, in line with the majority of Sports on wikipedia, add value to the reader and IMHO more aesthetically pleasing and more professional looking than were they not to be present.Fleets (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Support: per Fleets DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
3. Support: I think the flags present useful information in a concise format. I understand the issues around fluidity of national representation and the fact that flags are not applied in Aus/NZ, but I would keep them for Europe. Heywoodg ^talk 12:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Option 3: Use flags in European templates to represent something else

Instead of RLIF eligibility, the flags could represent nationality. Further discussion will be needed to work out how this is defined by the project.

Option 4: Use flags in all player templates

Option 4 would see the use of flags in all of the projects squad templates, not just European squads.

Option 5: Use flags in European templates to represent RLIF eligibility

Under this proposal, the squad templates will display two flags for some players to represent the nations they are eligible to represent under RLIF eligibility. Further discussion will be needed to define the how we display RLIF's complex eligibility laws and we may change the coding in the squad template to achieve this.

Cigarette card images

A lot of older biography articles use cigarette cards for images, under the provisions of WP:NFCC. While they add colour, some of them seem to bear only a caricature resemblance to the article subject. This seems to me to be the case at Gus Risman and I am wondering whether it might be better to use the image here instead, even though the quality is much poorer due to it coming from a contemporary newspaper. The same NFCC would apply but, obviously, if we switched then the cigarette card version would end up being deleted as an orphaned non-free image.

I raise this here because I doubt there are many people watching the Risman article and also because there is the wider principle regarding the utility of caricature. Not that anyone is actually going to see these people in the street and say "Hey, aren't you so-and-so?"! Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I think a photo, even one like that of poor quality, would be a better illustration than the cartoon. Mattlore (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree that the cartoon-y images especially should be replaced where possible. I'm actually lending a Salford history book currently with a better quality image of Risman - I'm not overly familiar with copyright rules, but I think it's ok to use? (Photo isn't credited and was taken over 70 years ago). J Mo 101 (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I think what matters is when it was first published and, in the UK, 1923 is a cut-off point. However, WP:NFCC can be used as justification, as it has been in the extant image at the Risman article. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite agree that any photo is better than a caricature as the quality of some photos especially ones in newspapers are of pretty poor quality. Photos should be used as much as possible but it should be assessed on a per-case basis. The image of Risman Sitush has found is of the quality that we should replace the cigarette card images with. Nthep (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the use of flags in European rugby league current squad templates

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to remove the flags. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Should flags be used in the player squad templates? What should take precedence; remove the currently in place flags per previous project consensus in 2012 or retain the currently in place flags per a wider wikipedia acceptance of flags through sportsperson?Fleets (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Oppose: As explained above, my view is that they should not be used because of rugby leagues eligibility laws (where a significant proportion of players are simultaneously eligible for two countries), because they are hard to verify and reference, and because the international eligibility of the player has no relevance to the club (which is the template we are talking about here). It also keeps us in line with WP:MOSFLAG and the appropriate use section. Mattlore (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose as already discussed. Complying with MOS:SPORTFLAGS is virtually impossible due to the RLIF's lax eligibility criteria allowing players to represent multiple nations without ever having to officially declare for one or the other. Flags may be accepted by other sports projects where sporting nationality is more clearly defined, but for RL, it's better not to have them at all rather than mislead readers with inaccurate flags. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose use per the recent discussion. In addition, SPORTFLAGS is a subsection of MOSFLAG and does not over-ride it per se. MOSFLAG discourages use of flags in biographies, period, and this does impact on the proposed usage in the club template. They're a distraction, a source of contention, and if a reader needs a flag to determine a country, they're unlikely to be able to read the article anyway - just more confusion. It takes us back to the days of the "illiterate symbol" that was used by railway companies. - Sitush (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per all the above comments. Nthep (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose the above arguments are hard to combat. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. I have no aesthetic problem with flags, but they take what can be a complicated matter and simplify it to the point of being misleading. Best addressed properly in the player's article. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Since !votes above are referring to at least one prior discussion and it will be archived at some point, it can be found here (permalink). - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The above seems to be pretty much unanimous, so unless anyone has any objections or anything further to add over the next couple of days, I think we can go ahead and close this? J Mo 101 (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away and exceptionally busy before that. I'm happy that the previous limited consensus has now become a consensus and that it appears to be more than warranted to remove the flags from the current rls squad templates for European clubs. It would appear that the consistent and primary driver for this is that the sportsperson section is deemed irrelevant to rugby league and that all other concerns over dual nationality et al, held within this section are superceded by the lines higher up in the section. It would appear that other sports are out of sync with our decision, but if you ignore the caveats within sportsperson, it does make the arguments to remove alot easier to follow.Fleets (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on these comments Fleets, I have ended the RfC by removing the tag. Mattlore (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at NSPORTS

Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Potentially misnamed page

There is a discussion here regarding a potentially-yet-unsourced name change to an RL organization. Your input and thoughts are requested. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

to present during world cup

I've been asked to clear it with the community in a box-ticking exercise that to present is okay within the country field of the world cup. The pre-existing position is not changing, nor is change sought at this time. To that end a hidden note was inserted after the present This allays any fears and brings us into line with other sports. Given that multiple navboxes are hidden, this appears to be a prudent action for the unitiated, and also a tip of the hat to those who have been obeying the rule that has been in place for years. Following the RLWC it is up for debate, but TBH it really does make clear sense for the coming weeks, and once a team is eliminated the year returns. Cheers.Theanonymousentry (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. A player may be a current member of the squad without being a present member of the TEAM. Some squad members may not even make an appearance for the team. That said, I don't feel strongly about it and I'm happy to hunch with the bunch. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. To me, it seems to just increase the maintenance work required for each player for no apparent benefit. As long as the infobox ends in "-17" then it saves anyone needing to go back and change them again and it eliminates the risk of some being missed when editors disappear from the project during the offseason (as always seems to happen). Happy to continue discussing and open to changing my position. Mattlore (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

STRONG SUPPORT - No issues with this.

One I can see with Internationals is should players with shifting allegiances have split years as if they went from club A, to club B, then back to club A. That would be separate obviously, but we seem to group the years. Would it be making it too complicated to having multiple of the same national sides in the infobox. Not necessarily advocating it, but just wondering.Fleets (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't what I meant, but I could dovetail and include the likes of Fifita, Taukeiaho & Taumololo. It doesn't help that we don't help the unitiated.Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Fleets, just to double check, you support this but you struck your entire statement? Primefac (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Cheers for that, I probably didn't mean to throw the baby out with the bath water there.Fleets (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Request: Infobox embedding

Medal record
Men's rugby league nines
Representing Papua New Guinea
Pacific Games
	2015 Port Moresby	Team

Could someone please edit either template:Infobox rugby league biography or template:MedalTableTop to allow the latter to be embedded into the former? A number of the Papua New Guinean players, such as Israel Eliab and Ase Boas, won gold in rugby league nines at the 2015 Pacific Games. The desired outcome is shown to the right. Thanks. Narkova (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, you can use "module=" to insert it into the infobox, but it doesn't look amazing. The medal box doesn't seem to behave the same way as most embed supporting infoboxes. Mattlore (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Slightly annoying but I guess the medal list will have to sit below the biography infobox. Narkova (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You could use the sportsperson template to embed both, such as here. Mattlore (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Recently Theanonymousentry has been adding Queensland Cup statistics to some infoboxes. My understanding is that the infobox is for first grade statistics only - is that your view as well or am I missing something here? Thanks, Mattlore (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

That is the case. I'll see if I grab a link to where it has been discussed before. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Here, and the next page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_rugby_league_biography/Infobox_upgrade_2008

This is just one of the questionable things Fleets and his clear sock puppet Theanonymousentry have been doing without discussion for a little while now. Other things that I don't really agree with is going into player intros and changing a biographical fact of a player being an Australian or New Zealander and changing it to Italian/Samoan international etc. ([1]) which is not only deceptive as it can lead someone who doesn't know rugby league well to believe a player is just purely an Italian/Samoan man, but also very rugby league centric, when the intro I believe should be biographical first and foremost, with details about his career coming soon after. More issues are removing the word 'professional' from intros, ([2]) again removing a fact but also placing professional players alongside any pages about amateur rugby league players without showing any difference. Then there's the old caption removals, which while I'm still in favour of captions, I can understand his point of view, except in cases like Pat Politoni where to the average person with little knowledge of rugby league, they wouldn't know who he's playing for as that is not an NRL club strip, and even an NRL club jersey is not that recognizable to anyone outside of rugby league. Simple discussion would suffice and who knows, maybe he would be able to win people over with his new ideas given the chance, but as we've come to see over a long period now, he likes to make sweeping changes without discussing it first and it's hard to bother sometimes. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw the Pat Politoni change this morn and thought it was unusual. Many infoboxes don't need captions, but that one seems appropriate. I also find the recent trend to an opening paragraph consisting entirely of "He was born in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia" strange. But, as you say, you have to pick your battles. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll answer with a what? In answer to Josh's second point, I thought that it was a massive step forward. Removing doubt with players of multiple nationalities, detailing what they are up front, and not giving undue credence of birth place by highlighting it three times in first few lines.Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Does professional being absent in Australia, mean that they are automatically amateur? It might be a cultural thing, but in Europe the professional is redundant. More than happy to restore to NRL players if it is an issue. Could I please ask where I've done it the other way around, ie for an Amateur player playing at a World Cup.Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought professional was only used for former players, to distinguish between those who have left the sport for another code.Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

On the New Zealand rugby league footballer side it sort of fell down with the likes of Jason Nightingale and numerous other players who were born in one country and moved to another. To say they are a "nation" rugby league footballer seems like OR, with what they are being a lot better to hang off of. I've gone out of my way to increase the nationality of birth in the background section and there it can be detailed, when they moved, their heritage. Otherwise the lead sentence becomes very clunky with born, heritage, etc all making for a clunky sentence. Was just seeking clarity of wording, references, to be in line with wider MOS rules on birthplaces not being in the lead, not giving undue credence to a place of birth, etcTheanonymousentry (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Josh's main point was around making widespread changes without discussing them first and trying to achieve consensus...rather than wanting to debate the actual merits or otherwise of that change. Mattlore (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that professional meant something different in Europe to Australia. I had considered time, but didn't think that it meant something different in that country. As such it remains untouched.Theanonymousentry (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Rugby_league

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 18:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Nthep (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.— Rod ^talk 19:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Representative years

I put this to a straw poll of 10 people last month and they all answered, a bit sheepishly. The question was around the to present or closing off of international years with their last game. They all thought that the players had retired, bar one who thought that it was due to "your funny rubgy league (the game, not this wikiproject) eligibility rules. Could we please have a drop down menu that explains this, a note that the uninitiated can link to or a few words that detail the last game played for current players. We wouldn't want to be on the outer with other sports, and then not explain why.Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

International rugby league records page

I have compiled a list of international rugby league records at User:Narkova/International rugby league records. Feel free to make suggestions and corrections to the page in order to bring it closer to possibly entering the mainspace. Narkova (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox years (for clubs)

Fleets and I have had a disagreement over at Talk:Pita Godinet. Specifically in this case, Fleets feels the year 2017 should be included in the infobox because Godinet was in the squad for Manly for 2017 even though he did not make any appearances in first grade. As far as I am aware, the protocol has always been to limit the infobox to first grade appearances. We have players who may toil away in reserves for years after their last game, and we also have players who may be in a team's squad for a long time before they make their NRL debut. It seems ridiculous to me that a player who makes his debut in 2017 would have his infobox say 2014 because that is when he was first listed in the squad. Or to have a team listed in the infobox with zero appearances because they were in the squad but didn't play. Anyways, as ever, I'll abide by whatever the consensus is. Doctorhawkes (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarity it would be a year end query, not a year start query. I'm quite happy for a players NRL debut to be the start of the infobox. It would be the end date that is questioned. With regards to Pita Godinet, it appears that he played in the first team at the NRL 9s, but did not make an appearance in the first team in 2017. The reasons for this are an irrelevance, but given the multitude of sources, including the NRL, RLWC and numerous other reputable sources that state he was a Manly player. It seems churlish to throw those sources out and say they are no good, and say that only Shawn is a trusted source. My position is that RLP is a very good source, but it should only be taken for what it is, a very good point of reference, but not one that should wag the dog and create a query to the unitiated when they look at the infobox. There is no query on the start years; the first game played is the starting point, and whilst out of step with other sports it is a long-held position. The query would be purely on end years. This is further supported by someone who may make his debut and not play for two years, or may spend a year out of the game. Are we to spell that player on the infobox too?Fleets (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Having "2016-17" displayed would give the false impression that he played his two first grade matches over those two years. Having 2016 gives a more accurate representation. To me, this isn't a dispute about sources - it is a dispute about what we want to represent in the infobox - and so the RLP comments are irrelevant. Mattlore (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I was actually using RLP as the main reason for only 16 being there, with the angle of verifiability. It seems that we go against the source that does back up the only games played angle if we take RLP out of the equation, because otherwise we are left with sources that state Godinet played for this team, signed from this team, etc.Fleets (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Pidi Tongap AFD

Notification. Currently unreferenced BLP. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion edits

An indefinitely blocked editor has been editing articles related to the New South Wales Rugby League premiership, National Rugby League, Australian Rugby League, and New South Wales Rugby Football League. I do not know much about the topic and have reverted their edits under WP:BE. However, it is very likely there is valuable content in their revisions. Could someone please review the following articles and see if there's anything salvageable?

Please feel free to restore content as deemed appropriate. A full report of the situation is filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CodyCruickshank. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 04:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The editor returned by evading their block. They were previously engaged in edit warring and so some of their edits may be contentious. Does anyone knowledgeable about the sport have a chance to review the changes? Mkdw ^talk 19:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look at some when I get a chance. I think these will all eventually get picked up naturally. Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing too. I imagine it is only the most recent league season articles and articles such as List of players with 1,000 NRL points that were under contention. Mkdw ^talk 06:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Avoid using smaller font sizes…

I was unaware of the MOS requirement to… "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections." MOS:ACCESS#Text/MOS:FONTSIZE, e.g. here. I believe this would affect a number of rugby league infoboxes. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

(loan) gets above the threshold for access.Fleets (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Or you just don't format it and let the template do the <small> formatting. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We're more likely to be falling foul of MOS:NAVBOXCOLOUR in a lot of the navboxes we have for squads etc. It's nice to have them in team colours but we should be bearing the accessibility guidelines perhaps more than we are. Nthep (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Potentially true, but I think the vast majority would prefer colours over the bland and souless ones used at the other code, no life there, and certainly nothing that draws you in, saying look here and navigate to another page, or update me if they are out of date.Fleets (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, just a comment that if anyone really goes on a accessibility check, then we won't have many legs to stand on. Nthep (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

True, but if creep went that way I think that could rip wikipedia apart, soccer would kick off and I'm sure they would not be the only ones. <small>Fleets (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NCSP

We appear to have alot of pages moving under, what I would see as the misinterpretation of the naming conventions for both codes of rugby. Brought it here and raised it with the individual in question as there appears to be quite a few of them in my watchlist.Fleets (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely overkill. I think WP:NCSP is pretty clear. Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This had been addressed, after no objection after three days to uploading the MOS for league and union to replace the inaccurate information at NCSP. It was requested that it was brought to the attention of both projects concerned.Fleets (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This has been re-raised after concerns by an admin over the confusing term (rugby) as a disambiguator, even though it is a long held consensus and widely implemented MOS.Fleets (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Nicknames in infoboxes

What are people's opinions on what nicknames should be included in players' infoboxes? I've always been under the impression that they're fine for well-known nicknames commonly used by the media (e.g. Billy the Kid, G.I.), but anything else should be removed. I was reverted for removing this and this, but these seem to be little more than nicknames you'd hear at the training ground. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

If they are sourced by legitimate sources, then they are fair game. Else we are picking and choosing, and on that extremist basis there is the argument for them not to be on the infobox at all.Fleets (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Rugby union and a few other projects that I stalk do not use a nickname parameter (see this thread). Primefac (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

They (people from that project) didn't seem to care that there are a lot of rugby league players with that infobox, and that removing the line for that infobox would impact this project. A nickname might be that something that is heard on the radio, tv, podcast, newsmedia, pitch, terraces, etc could be deemed non-relevant to their sporting career and absorbed into the body text.Fleets (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Union isn't the only project or template that does it, just the one that I remember where the discussion took place. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd really like to see more sources for a nickname and not just using the common parlance in both rugby and soccer of players referring to each other by surname-y. If it's a nickname that appears frequently in sources and isn't just a quote from another player then it probably has traction but unlikely otherwise. Nthep (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That's true, there are alot of unsourced nicknames out there. Surname-y and surname-o are the commons ones, and the ones that would be picked up more widely than someone who has acquired a nickname that needs explaining, but yeah they should all be cited.Fleets (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears to me that MOS:NICKNAME indicates something like Joey Johns should be included but Robbie "Faf" Farah should not. There is a difference between a credible source using the nickname, or just quoting another player verbatim.Doctorhawkes (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That would detail presentation. I've never heard Farah called Faf, but equally I have heard Sean O'Loughlin called Lockers at the DW by fans and players alike, on TV, on the radio, in newsmedia, podcasts, etc but have only seen SOL online. There is a cultural dimension here too, with England largely being quite simplistic with their nicknames, but Australia being more creative. If there is evidence to show that it is in use then surely it has a place, and if not then it is something that has no bearing on their career and should be absorbed into the body text. It is important that we do not have a great many lines that similar sports have, so potentially this is one to go.Fleets (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I know in the past, the project has used a rule around "must be used in the headline of reliable sources" to give us an idea of if it is notable enough or not. I think nicknames that are just shortened/common versions of names, ie "Val" for "Valentine", also aren't worth mentioning. Mattlore (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What happens when we can't find a link that calls Cameron Smith the Accountant in the title? It all seems a little too case, by case. I've been asked to source in the past, and I'm happy to continue doing that, but wouldn't want to remove Cameron Smiths just because I can't source a link that details it in the title, or then bend the rule just because he's the Aussie captain.Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Having looked into it I now understand why I Robbie Farah and faf or faffy was potentially defamatory. It is on his official Rabbitohs profile though.Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The headline rule seems perfect to me.Doctorhawkes (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You do realise that could well remove 3/4 of the nicknames here, and potentially remove a great many non-European ones, ie famous Aussies who I can't source to a title, but can find a great many links for. Seems like we are trying to remove the nicknames altogether here. If the infobox is to be minimalist then this seems a creep in the right direction. To source is fine, but to put a standard on those sources that precludes the vast majority of nicknames seems to be a step towards a desired total removal.Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy with 3/4 removed. The Joeys, Freddys and Little Generals remain, but the scarcely used are gone. I have no desrire to see them all gone.

I wouldn't be opposed to total removal (I actually found a discussion where this was agreed, but nothing seems to have come from it). For the minority of players who genuinely have notable nicknames, there's no reason why this can't be added to the prose – it hasn't done any harm to The Volcano's article. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm more in favour of a total removal than a rule that says "it has to be in the article title" as we will be losing alot of nicknames that way; the bizarre ones, the well-earned ones and the obvious ones. I'm not sure there would be much take-up in working it into the player article, would feel a little of an odd sentence, apart from say a player who earned it at a particular game. Trying to explain Noddy Kimmorley only opens his article up to vandalism.Theanonymousentry (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If the consensus is remove, then I'm in favour of removal. It would bring us in line with other sports. Just don't wanna waste my time in adding sources, only to have them removed at a later date.Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As this is agreed should a bot be set up to remove these, or should the Infobox just have the line removed?Theanonymousentry (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The easiest thing is to just pull the param in the infobox, since it will have to be done anyway. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds the best way to go, as it appears to be agreed. Maybe hide it first for those who want to transcribe the nicknames into the article?Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I for one would not be happy to have these removed from the infobox. The rugby league infobox is minimalist as it, when compared to other sports and we already don't have some pretty basic information in the infobox.Fleets (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there still an appetite for this to removed or hidden in the infobox. I started removing them, then there was an idea to remove the field. Nothing has happened with that. Is anything happening as at the minute it is just me and one other editor removing them.Theanonymousentry (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I was waiting a sufficient amount of time before pulling the param (i.e. waiting for opposition). I've now updated the template. Primefac (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update to the template Primefac.Theanonymousentry (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The aforementioned 'headline rule' was working just fine for years until the return of unapologetically chronic sock-puppeteer User:Londo06 (this time as User:Theanonymousentry and User:Fleets), who continues to push the view (which no one else seems to hold) that the existence of a field in an infobox equates to a requirement that it must be filled. I have reservations about the removal of the field from the infobox due to the disappearance of perfectly notable and referenced content (see Allan Langer). Disgraced sock-puppeteers just have to watch all their disruptive edits get undone I'm afraid.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V, if you think that users are violating the one-account rule you are welcome to file an SPI, but until such point please do not make accusations that could be misidentified as harassment. Primefac (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fleets/Archive#23_August_2016.¹ Not my fault it closed the way it did, believe me.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

My point was that we do not need to re-litigate a subject that is irrelevant to the specific discussion at hand. If you have new or different evidence, you are welcome to bring it up at the SPI, but please stop derailing the conversation with irrelevant arguments. You're welcome to your opinions and are free to state them, but just because someone disagrees with you does not meant that you should attack them. Argue the content, not the person. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually I was more concerned with who is going to go around re-incorporating all the well-sourced notable nickname content out there that has now been rendered invisible by the infobox edit (if it's decided that the infobox edit stands).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's any rush. There are probably only a small percentage of articles where a nickname is especially notable/unusual, and the information is still there if and when anyone wants to add it to the prose. I would rather not see the nickname field re-activated as it is an easy target for misuse or vandalism. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

More accurately it's a target of "I know nothing of the subject matter, so I will remove an well known nickname because neeeerr" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.213.30 (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we should start letting vandals set standards of use. I'm sure genuine misuse isn't as widespread as certain "users" have worked hard at making it seem.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Differing hyphens used in the titles of Challenge Cup articles…

There are differing hyphens used in the titles of Challenge Cup articles; the minority use… - , e.g. 1912-13 Challenge Cup, and the majority (correctly?) use… – , e.g. 1896–97 Challenge Cup, before I change the minority to the majority, would anyone have any objections? Best regards 18:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Not from me. The titles should use the endash as the majority do. Titles with a simple hyphen should be converted to redirects as the use of hyphens in searches is much more common than users entering the endash. Nthep (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Should be en-dashes not hyphens. Mooretwin (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Challenge Cup

Hi @Mooretwin:, @Gibson Flying V:, et al… de-hyphenating the Challenge Cup articles, such that they refer only to the year in which the matches were played is fine by me, but if de-hyphenating is acceptable, then I believe the season in which the tournament took place should be linked in the opening paragraph of the article. Also, if de-hyphenating is the way to go, can we have please have consistency in naming of all the tournament articles, e.g. 1967 BBC2 Floodlit Trophy (1967–68), 1974 BBC2 Floodlit Trophy (1974–75), and the Lancashire Cup/Yorkshire Cup tournaments etc. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't accept that de-hyphenating and the rash of page moves is justified. The draw for the 1896–97 CC was made in 1896 it was just that the fixture scheduling meant the games weren't played until 1897, the competition was still a part of the 1896–97 season's event. Until we got to the summer era there was no differentiation and the clarity that DynamoDegsy seeks and I agree with is provided by using the season range in the title.

If the consensus is that the articles should be defined only by when they were played then yes clarity is needed as long as it is in the form of linking in the opening paragraph in the relevant cup article e.g. The 1897 Challenge Cup was the inaugural staging of the Northern Rugby Football Union's Challenge Cup and was played during the 1896–97 Northern Rugby Football Union season in the article 1897 Challenge Cup, but not if this is a justification to include ... during the 1896–97 Northern Rugby Football Union season in any article e.g. player biographies, where the 1897 Challenge Cup is mentioned. If a reader sees 1897 Challenge Cup in a biography and wants to know more about that competition then they can click on the link - we don't have to provide every nuance in the biography - which IMO just clutters those articles up and is visually distracting with a sea of blue links. Nthep (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Totally on board with DynamoDegsy's calls for links to seasons in opening paragraphs and consistency across competitions. Like you, Nthep, the part about the draw of the 1897 Challenge Cup being in 1896 gave me pause, but I would be unmoved to hear that the 2010 NRL season's draw was actually set down in 2009. Also I find that across Wikipedia, article prose tends to be in reference to Challenge Cup tournaments (which can sometimes span two years) far less than to Challenge Cup Finals (which always occur in one specific year), meaning the moves could improve link accuracy (e.g. the '1994' aspect of the 1994–95 Challenge Cup is unlikely to be the focus of links within player biographies, which I find are more prone to discuss deeds in Wembley Finals). Totally on board with the entirety of your second paragraph.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The part about the draw being in 1896 was a bit tongue in cheek but the principle of referring to the league season and cup competitions that were played during it by the same consistent terminology remains. Taking this the other way for many years the County Cups took place during the first half of the season and were complete by Christmas so we have the possibility of talking about the 19xx-yy league season, the 19yy Challenge Cup and the 19xx Lancashire Cup which all relate to the same season's events. Take into account sides winning a trophy twice or more on the trot and we can include the 19yy Lancashire Cup into the mix by including that in the next sentence and make things very confusing for the lay reader who by now has probable lost complete track of which season we are talking about.

When it comes to the prose, and I take the point about finals appearances in biographies, then perhaps to write ... played in the final of the 1896–97 Challenge Cup at Headingley on 24 April 1897 rather than ... played in the 1896-97 Challenge Cup final at Headingley on 24 April 1897. Nthep (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

In the winter era, the seasons should all be referred to as two hyphenated years, and so should the competitions that related to those seasons, even if for some the matches only took place in one calendar year. Oppose any dehyphenation. Mooretwin (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I Don't feel terribly strongly either way really, but I do find 100% of a tournament taking place within a particular [Year] a very compelling reason to name an article about it [Year] [Tournament]. Compelling enough to absorb concerns about naming consistency with articles for other tournaments whose matches were shared between two years and potential reader confusion caused by bad prose/Wikilinking. How are other British football tournaments treated? What about reliable sources? I want more than 'I don't like it's.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)